So You Want to Be a Match-Maker!

(Technical Writing According to Dobryn)

I. The Crux:

In order to define technical writing in “What’s Technical about Technical Writing,” Dobryn goes through a lengthy process of dismembering other definitions of technical writing and finally comes to the following definition: “Technical writing is writing that accommodates technology to the user” (54).

II. The Difference:

Dobryn’s definition is different from the other definitions in that it looks at technical writing within the context of “speech acts” that express “intentionality” (45).

Through this move, Dobryn introduces the concept of “background skills” (49).

Both these moves serve the function of bringing the audience of technical writing into a relationship with the writer.

III. The How and What:

“[...} when you express an Intentional state, you set up a way for people to understand the situation that the Intentional state represents” (51).

“[...]we must structure the way we present facts (or any Intentional states) in a manner that permits the reader to develop any missing Background skills” (52).

“The word ‘accommodate’ reminds us that integrating a technology is setting up a human relationship, with all the attendant feints” (57).

In other words, it is not enough to accurately describe facts and processes. The technical writer must take into account the background knowledge and skills of the “user” and structure information in such a way as to match the information to the “user.” Technical writing that does not do this “gives access without understanding” (57).

DISCUSSION: What implications does this definition contain that are different than the other definitions Dobryn criticizes?

OTHER DEFINITIONS:

1. Pearsall-Writing that has a particular FORMAT, STYLE and FUNCTION (30).

2. Kelley and Masse- “[...] writing about a subject in the pure sciences or the applied sciences in which the writer informs the reader through an objective presentation of facts” (30).

3. Harris- “[...]the rhetoric of scientific method” (32)

4. Britton- Technical writing embraces the goal of “convey[ing] one meaning and only one meaning” (32).

DISCUSSION: What aspects of these other definitions do we tend to feel an instinctive affinity for? Has Dobryn thrown out ideas that may still be useful, such as objectivity?

Why does Dobryn go to such lengths to justify bringing in the “user?’

A Lighter Take: The Hays Article

The Crux:

For Hays, technical writing is much more a matter of attitude, style and vocabulary. Technical writers focus on “correct usage, “ have a “serious” and “objective” tone, and use “highly specialized” vocabulary. For Hays, the “technical” of technical writing is an adjective, and the aforementioned qualities are what make it “technical.” Knowledge of subject matter is crucial for Hays, knowledge of the reader (or Dobryn’s “user”) is inconsequential.

DISCUSSION: What argument would Dobryn use to refute Hays?

Britton: What You Read is What You Get

The Crux:

The function of technical writing for Britton is to convey a message in as unambiguous fashion as possible. While Dobryn attacks this argument with his analogy of the STOP sign, and any lay person would agree that the clearest of writing is always open to some interpretation, the goal here is an honorable one. Few would disagree that the directions to bake a cake should result in basically the same product, and one would hope that the directions for who can launch a nuclear warhead and under what conditions should not be open to much interpretation.

DISCUSSION: Are these views really exclusive? Should Dobryn include some guidelines for style? Which definition do you feel the most affinity for and why?